tv Charlie Rose PBS May 9, 2017 3:59pm-5:00pm PDT
>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin with the testimony of former acting attorney general sally yates as the spoke to a subcommittee of the senate judiciary committee. >> you opened up a new can of worms or point to the finger directly but gave additional details how much urgency there was with her concerns and how often she was in touched to the white house council in short order. the time line, two phone calls, two in-person meetings from january 26 to january 30. and her knowledge of what then
happened in the next 18 days goes cold because she was shown the door herself. >> charlie: and continue with the aftermath of the presidential election in france. >> a lot of people like me have the thought that is someone has a chance it's this young man. now a new frontier and new voter, sure but he was probably the most positive candidate having the will to embrace again and to revive again the european dream. >> charlie: and again with karr carlos ghosn. >> and electric cars are a small percentage of the industry as a
whole. but it probably has he biggest potential not because there's consumer demand for electric cars but the emission standards and limitation governments -- we're not talking only about the u.s. government particularly european government and japanese government and chinese government are putting as a trigger as the take off of the electric cars market. >> the testimony of sally yates and aftermath to the french election and the future of self-driving cars when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: we begin with sally yates' testimony to the senate judiciary committee the former acting attorney general testified today alongside james clapper. they were questioned on a range of issues on russia's meddling in the election and the conduct of michael flynn saying he was vulnerable to black mail. >> we feel general flynn was compromised by the russian. >> charlie: joining me now what did she say today?
>> she gave more detail of what she said at the white house and gave a time line of when she called to in form them there were concerns of the meetings they had in the office and the offer she made to detail the evidence they had showing reasons they had concerns that general flynn would be prime ministerized for black mailed >> compromised black mailed and we heard more detailed on that front and from yates and clapper as to the extent of what sort of unmasking there was in the white house proper and one instance where a trump team members' name was unmasked in an intelligence report and whether they were the source of leaks.
she took a lot of heat during the hearing about various issues related to things that didn't have to do with the russian investigation. it was the details and she doubled down that she was very concerned not just informing white house officials that heads up there were conversations between flynn and russian officials but real concern he could be compromised or black mailed. >> charlie: what was the most significant thing for you? >> when have you the acting attorney general say i'm so concerned the sitting national security adviser of the white house is compromised and susceptible to black mail you have to rush to the white house for two separate meetings it speaks to the urgency they felt at the fbi and what took them 18
days. if donald trump fired michael flynn because he felt he couldn't trust his national security adviser anymore what changed? because originally he kept him on for a long time only of the news broke he couldn't trust him. >> charlie: did obama say he had profound concerns with him as a top military adviser? >> and we know that in their private meeting after the election president obama warned president-elect trump against hiring michael flynn. you can see obviously obama fired michael flynn from the defense intelligence agency and flynn was a controversial figure at that time anyway. he talked how shari'a was spreading across the nation and there's a reason to be scared of
muslim. there was -- you can see from president-elect trump's standpoint he may not have taken the concerns as seriously. >> charlie: and president trump is tweeting today about et was the obama administration that first gave him top security clearance. >> right. of course as matt mentioned they gave him security clearance but they also showed him the door at a certain point too because they were dissatisfied with his service. there's been a lot of tweeting. the president. ed up the day tweeting the day how members of the panel should be asking yates about whether intimating she would be the source of the leaks and she got those questions from members of panel and then tweeted the fake news media must be upset because they didn't say anything new.
it's true yates didn't open an entirely new can of worms or point the finger at any other member of the trump administration but gave detail on how much urgency there was behind her concerns and how often she was in touch with the white house council in expressing that urgency in short or the. the two phone calls and two meetings happened in four days from january 26 to january 30 as she was describing. and her knowledge of what then happened in the next 18 days goes because she was shown the door herself. >> do we know what the legal council is saying they did with the information? >> just what the white house has said so far which is an incomplete picture of what they've done. so far the white house said they went immediate to donald trump. you can imagine the situation
where they say boy, this is a hold-over from the obama administration. what's she up to? we know sally yates said let me show you how you can have access to the raw underlying intelligence. don't take my word for it. see it yourself. the question we'll want it know is what did they get the transcripts of the call between flynn and the russian ambassador and when did trump read them and how long did he know with what the white house said publicly was not true. >> and if there was discussion about letting flin go before that became public and published. >> charlie: there's also what clapper said and he confirmed british intelligence officials shared information about trump's campaign. i assume that's different from the dossier stuff from a former
british intelligence agent or not? >> nobody wants to talk the dossier. clapper said they weren't able to confirm a lot of what is known as subsourcing. sources blind it the people reading it. they did confirm intelligence agencies passed information to the united states about potential meetings between trump administration officials and russians. this was part of the real flurry of information coming in last year that was causing great concern in the obama administration in the final weeks and months. >> charlie: with what knew do we know about what trump has said about the wiretapping of trump tower? did it come up today? was it mostly about general
flynn when he said to the legal council in the white house or are the senators that questioned her go to other areas? >> the wiretapping didn't come up that specifically. it came up in the general category and came up in the line of questioning about unmask. the panelists did ask both yates and clapper if they had requested unmasking if they were aware of unmasking. clapper said he once requested unmasking relate to someone on the trump team and yates said no and they were asked about their opinions about unmasking and who might in the greater intelligence community may have been privy to that and she said she had received reports where the names were already unmasked and spoke about the intelligence value sometimes knowing who the u.s. persons are in the
intelligence reports. in terms of specific grilling on wiretapping that wasn't a focus. the one thing that seemed to be the other topic that was addressed there was questioning that happened about the decision yates made when she told the trump administration she wouldn't uphold the immigration ban the first executive order in court and she took a lot of harsh questions from republican members of the panel and shot back a lot of direct-pointed answers as well. there was some interesting fire flying across for those exchanges. that obviously not related to the russian investigation but as you said up your introduction it's the first chance the members of congress have had to grill yates in an on forum and the first time she has been in front of them and there were many questions pent up people wanted to ask about various topics not all exclusively to
the russia probe. >> there was one oblique preference where no one followed up where clapper said i'm unaware of someone in the trump campaign being a surveillance wiretap and he said i didn't know about the fbi investigation into possible collusion between russia and the trump campaign and sally yates added her two sent where she said i'm unaware anybody on the campaign was wiretapped. there's a lot wiggle room because carter page was subject to foreign intelligence collection after he left the campaign. >> and the point clapper made about not having been aware of the counterintelligence investigation when it started there was pushback on that point too and that was something that had not been said publicly
before the hearing. that was a point various people leapt on to see why that wasn't publicly shared and what it meant about the information they the fbi was looking into. >> charlie: new both. when we come back the french election. stay with us. we continue with the french election. independent centrist emmanuel macron won against far-right marine le pen. he is the youngest president for france and the youngest sinceuw napoleon. many caution there would be division and a quarter abstain from voting. the landslide say rebuke to the election of trump. he said: >> europe and the world are
waiting for us to stand up to the values of the enlightenment threatened. >> charlie: joining me is adam gopnik and michiel vos and emmanuel saint martin and from london bernard-henri levy a philosophy and author. i'm joined to have all of you. bernard, i begin with you. was this a victory for mac reason or defeat for le pen? were people voting against her or voting for him. >> both. it was a huge defeat for le pen. she was predicted to be the winner and lost very strongly.
it is a strong defeat. veep a sort of stop to the wave of populism in france. a very big defeat and by the way sort of suicide. she committed suicide during the main television debate by unmasking herself. she dropped the mask of her respectability and revealed her true ugly and extremist face. this is one thing. but the other thing is that is also a positive vote in favor of emmanuel macron. he was good during the campaign he did his best to overcome the other parties and had the most modern part of the left aligning with the most progressive part of the right. he is going to be winning and this is what happened in france and what they voted for.
it is not only a vote anti but for emmanuel macron. >> charlie: how did he do it? ? >> part is luck. he was the first to benefit from several things. first of all a very weak candidate on the right with a lot of judiciary problem and a weak socialist party with francçois hollande at the botto in terms of polls. that was something for him and he understood what the country needed and he was someone different and young and someone people were not scared of. those two things being different and being reassuring for a lot of people. >> charlie: but he ran a good campaign and had a good debate. >> he had a good debate and ran
an efficient campaign. it's just the beginning for him but impressive at 39. >> charlie: the parliament elections come when? >> june. >> what's it say about france? >> two things that i think are important. one is the republican traditional is still strong and powerful in france. the greatest difference between what happened in france and america last year is the respectable right infant the former president sarkozy formed together against le pen. they said there's certain fanaticism we cant align with. >> charlie: they said it after the first round. >> i don't know if sarkozy said it on the day but if not 24 hours later. and that's a huge thing. and he's as distant as marc yo o
rubio is to hillary clinton. he said marine le pen is a threat to the republic and we have to go elsewhere and that's a strong sign of how powerful republican values remain in france. in part i think because of -- and we can talk about this more, the still traumatic experience of the war and the price paid by collaborating with the extreme right. that's one thing. the other thing i think it says is that macron and i agree with bernard very strongly, macron is a thing onto himself. he's not simply a candidate people voted for because they didn't wantle le pen. macron represents another way into politics. he clearly is inspiring for
people truly exhausted by the spiritual and intellectual bankruptcy of the establishment party and left and right. in the debate he wasn't just good enough but knew how to confront evil and confront someone very bad and do it without shame and aggressive and did it consistently. he's a very impressive guy. >> charlie: what kind of presidency will we see from here. >> when he called her the high priestess of fears and that was a high point for him during the debate. >> charlie: the priestess of fear. >> she's sitting right there and it's very close and highs -- he's sitting there 39 year old
and a career politician and she showed herself and they wanted a normal president and they got francçois hollande. in that debate the young macron who will have to save france and save the european union and the euro and the axis with germany but at least he stood up during that debate -- >> charlie: so what should we expect from him, bernard? >> first, hollande was not a bad president and in many respects he was good and macron had an incredible series of chances above his head. this is absolutely true. it is even the worst novelist in the world could not have imagined such an intrigue of
what happened in the last year. the failure of him and so on. but a great politician according to machiavelli is nothing but someone who is able to save the moment. macron did that. number three, he must thank mrs. le pen because she was so disgusting her hatred was so visible macron took credit immediately. last point, he's young. this in my old country say great thing to have in hand to be young. >> charlie: so you just phrased francçois hollande and at the same time he suffered enormously
poor rating. but in his cabinet at one time was mr. macron. now as president how will he be different? >> he will have a different program. the main point with macron he is a liberal in economics it's not a bad thing. it's not an insult. in france a leftist including sometimes mr. hollande to be a liberal is a bad thing it's something you have to avoid. macron coming from the left and saying liberalism is great. globalis globalization is great. he dares to say that. he dares to express this probably will be the main part of his novelty. >> charlie: what role will his wife play?
>> it will be interesting. she's 25 years older. she's 64 and he's 39. we don't know how the wife doesn't have it same role as the first lady here. that was the idea and macron talked about that having status for the first lady. we see what she does but she's very important for him. they've been together forever. he has in effect grandchildren and he's 39 years old but her grandchildren are his grandchildren. she's been a big part in his career. she's there but doesn't have any public role so far so we see if
she takes one. we're not so sure. the way in politics is not the same in france as here. >> charlie: he was be an investment banker. a minister of finance but a centrist >> french people in new york, albeit, they're entrepreneurs, they live in new york but they said he's more like trump than you would think. he doesn't does like money. he doesn't doeislike business a it's not common in france every politician wants to put people to work. he'll adjust the capitalist society but he'll work with it and he's going to be in that sense i think also an easier to go partner for mr. trump than she would ever be.
>> charlie: might he do some of the reforms sarkozy said he wanted to do and then moved away from. >> sarkozy you mean? >> charlie: not from the socialist party -- >> i remember being in paris the week after sarkozy was elect and everyone around him was talking about a program of radical reform and then the moment when you attempt to make change in france there's always a response and usually there's a response on the street and usually the government then backs down. i don't know how he will evade that formula and i don't know what he will do in response. actually i think centrist has a meaning in france a line of political inheritance as michiel was saying but it's a mistake to see him as a centrist in a be
confused, befuddled pragmatist. he has a program of liberal reform. in that debate he talked again and again good flexibility and bringing flexibility to the top-heavy french system. >> charlie: is france ready for that. >> market reforms are at the center of his platform. he was one of the only candidates and he put work at the center of his candidacy and the demonstrations started today. it started actually yesterday night. if he has the majority in june
he can do that if not it's a different story. >> charlie: for a long time when john f. kennedy was elected and after french politicians fashioned themselves like him and wanting to create because of age in part and because of style in part wanted to create a sense of new frontier. is this possible? is this what he wants to do? will he attract a lot of young people in france who want to come to work in government and have an opportunity to change their country? >> when he was under the pyramid of the louvre and it was sort of a family portrait kennedy like and a lot of french people like me had the thought that if
somebody is a french kennedy it might be this young man. of course he recalled that. now a new frontier and new border, sure. but he's new border and this is a chance he is the most positive candidate having the will to embrace again and revive downtown the european dream. macron is a european citizen of french origin. this is the thing we saw in his speech. >> charlie: one question always in france has been the role of the state. will that change? i'm asking adam. >> macron talks about flexibility and doesn't regard free market as the work of the devil and french tradition is the statist tradition and his
background is as someone who works within the state and believes the two aren't contradictory. i remember the great french philosophy and journalist said about an earlier french candidate and he meant there aren't many problems that can't be resolved by tecnocratic solutions. he was brilliant in suggesting the power of fear could be overcome by the power of intelligence and that's what he did is that there's some problems that can't be solved by the technocrat's toolbox.
it's a challenge of being overcome the weakness as obama faced the problem of pragmatism and pragmatism is not always enough. >> charlie: obama campaigned for him at least two i saw. the hacking. what do we know about the hacking at this stage? >> at least macron was more pro-american than pro-russian. she was not pro-russian, not at all. this serves himself. russia's the bad guy here if we all find out what it is. i think it's back to europe now. europe sighed a big sign of releas
releast big sign of relief because it's a big sigh of relief. >> here's the problem as it seems to me, he cannot fail. we have had a series of failed presidencies in france. macron cannot -- if he were to fail the road opens to the extremes its never been before and we had a series of failed presidencies because france has been a difficult
it was supposed to be a long wave maybe since yesterday the wave was stopped and this young man has this responsibility of having maybe made his way against this. his success depends not only on france but the rest of europe. the populist was defeated yesterday night. >> charlie: thank you all very much. bernard in london, thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> charlie: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> charlie: carlos ghosn is here and credited win saving the
automaker from collapse after taking control 15 years ago and was voted chairman of board. i'm pleased to have had him back at the table. welcome. the question is with respect to nissan you're stepping down as ceo, remaining as chairman or not? >> yeah, i'm remaining as chairman. >> charlie: what's new role there? >> i've been at the head of the company for 17 years. there's a certain point in time when the company's doing well it's time for an interesting. so there's a new guard coming. i feel strong about the team in place which allows me to concentrate more attention to renault and mitsubishi from the other side and continue to construct the alliance between the two companies. >> charlie: there was no sense you had too many jobs and stretched too thin? >> without doubt. i am nay certain way leaving the ceo position of nissan and taking the position of chairman
of mitsubishi. you'll have to pay more attention to mitsubishi and have to leave the attention on nissan and put somebody in charge of the company as chief executive officer. >> charlie: do you believe you can do for mitsubishi what you did for nissan? >> i believe i can help. with the experience i have and the fact i know very well the environment in japan i can help move it faster to revitalizing the company. >> charlie: what did you do at nissan that made it better? >> if you look at the score cards it's one thing. the company more than doubled it size, $20 billion of that and the assets have gone a lot. in some ways we re-established the company's vitality. >> charlie: weren't there failures of emission standards?
>> mitsubishi asked for support from the partner and this is where we moved in and became the main shareholder of mitsubishi. >> charlie: everybody talks about acquisitions and culture clash. we have west and east. was there a culture clash? >> no. there was conflicts but well managed. in fact the conflicts didn't lead it a clash. have you a could be -- conflict and you don't manage it it ends up in a bigger clash. asian companies don't act the same as western companies. it's different in terms of priorities and practices and values. lots of things are different except when you put a common project on the table and it's explained and everybody buys into it you can manage all these differences for the common purpose. >> charlie: you also have a knack for cost-cutting don't
you? >> it always starts like this. the ceo of many industries start with cost cutters. now, if it's limited to this it's a failure because at the end much the day it's about growing the company and building value. it has to be tight on cost and then you have to manage innovation and products and it shows to the evolution of the revenue of the company. >> charlie: we know the stories where one auto company acquired another with failure. we've watched it in the last 10, 15 years. what mistakes are they making your not going to make? >> i'm not merging the company. i like to keep the identity of the company separate. because most the failures are
due to the fact one identity is lost or people feel they've become second-rate citizens to a bigger entity and you don't want this to happen. you want people to feel motivated within the lines. so the mitsubishi people are part of it and everybody has its own identity and proud of their brand and company and working together. when you know how to manage this it's more powerful. >> charlie: as you know because of populism which has been true here and in europe wing with brexit and the recent election in france. what are we missing when populists want to point the finger to globalization and say you're responsible for the loss
of jobs and one item after another. macron did some of that in winning. >> in a certain way without doubt it will continue. what we're seeing with the emergence of populism in some countries is the fact that people don't understand anymore the benefit of globalization. when you are losing your job and people are telling you you're losing the job because there's competition from other countries. >> charlie: or somebody just bought your company and moving overseas. >> globalization is just a bad trend because if it's the basis for you losing your job you don't want globalization. somehow we need to explain there's a benefit to globalization and from time to time globalization has excesses and they kneaneed to be correct and there's ways to correct the excesses much globalization but you can't just take away and not defend the benefit of globalization because at the end
of the day you leave the share of voice only for certain people. >> charlie: who should be responsible for the people who are victims of that and can't find another job because the primary manufacturers in their community left? >> at the end of the day if some jobs disappear in some markets it's because of the pressure of the consumer. we know this with the car industry it's a competitive industry. we can't afford anything the consumer refuses because they'll reject us as a brand. you have to give the consumer what they want. from time to time this means changes in our supply chain to be always relevant. this being said there's a way to prevent this by training and participating and automizing and avoid the heavy consequence into the country and when you're a
supporter of globalization it can't not only be a short-term vision in what you need to accomplish but put it within a certain horizon including the mid and long term. when we see artificial intelligence we need to anticipate that by reskilling our own people. >> charlie: reskilling? >> that means training and you have engineers give them more computer science skills and technology for them to continue to do their job without becoming obsolete. >> charlie: do you say when you read the paper and it says the market cap of tesla is good for ford and general motors. >> it's good for tesla. that's all i can say.
>> charlie: general motors is 70,000 versus -- >> 10 million. it means for some companies people are looking much more in the future than the present and for some companies they're looking much more in the present on that the future. tesla benefits and it's good for them that people are betting on what they'll do in the future. >> charlie: called betting on the calm in some circles. >> for nissan and renault the bottom line of today is the main driver it and we don't get much credit for the. . >> charlie: at the same time didn't you have an electric car before we even thought about tesla? >> we did. we are the biggest seller and producer of electric cars today
but we'reuj not addressing the premium market the core of the market. $30,000, $35,000 and tesla start from the premium market. we're not competing. we are in a certain rate colleagues to promoting certain cars each addressing it from a different segment of the market and we know there's more attractiveness for premium cars and sports cars than for the common cars of the core market. >> charlie: it's much more -- >> you give the impression tesla is the main producer of electric cars is wrong. >> charlie: how much of the future is electric cars. >> in urban regions globally we're predicting 25% of the cars
sold in cities will be electric by 2030. particularly in the urban concentration where you have more than 50% of the market. this will be driven by emission constraints and in many cities we're starting to see a lot of restriction on circulation of diesel and gasoline cars. >> charlie: and i'm telling you what you've taught me in other interviews. it depends on how fast they can get up to speed with power stations. >> and how fast we can produce the cost of electric cars. the consumer is looking at the sticker price and wants the electric car to be a good buy also. >> charlie: that's why tesla is trying to develop as fast as it can. >> 92 million cars were sold
last year globally. from the 92 million cars 500,000 were electric cars. so they present in very small percent ac of the industry as a whole but it probably has the biggest potential of the government not because there is consumer demand for electric cars and the emission standards ap the limitations governments -- we're not only talking about the u.s. government but european and japanese government is going to trigger the takeoff of the electric cars market. >> charlie: do you have a significant presentation in japanese market? >> we do in normal and electric cars. the market of the electric cars is one of the most vibrant in the world. because there's so much incentive the government is putting behind electric cars.
>> charlie: so they incentivizing you to buy an electric car. >> and incentivizing car makers to make them. we have expanded plans in china but before getting the authorization to expand we had to commit to make electric cars. >> charlie: chinese know what they're doing don't they? are they difficult to deal with? >> no, they have their plan and you have to follow their plans. >> charlie: they do plan well. >> whatever you can contribute to the plan you'll receive the appropriate incentive. >> charlie: you explains the difference between self-driving and autonomous. what's the difference? >> autonomous car you're in the car but you decide if you want to drive or not or want to be driven. i'm very optimistic it will come
to the market first. the driverless car there's no driver if the car. that's he robo taxi in a certain way. it will take more time not only because technology is more complicated but second you need the reg regulator to accept they can be mass marketed. if something goes wrong the person is responsible and can always take back the control. >> charlie: what do people do while the car's being driven? >> as we're building connectivity in the car and you'll be able to take your hands off the wheel and take your eyes off the road and go for a video conference or finish your homework or talk to kids while your going to school. these prototypes exist today.
i've driven in jerry in palo alto and we have authorization to drive some prototype. a car drove me true the city stopping in front of lights and passengers. >> charlie: were you sitting in the driver's seat where you can take control? >> i felt safe. as you know in the united states people spend on average i think an hour and a half a day so you can do something else. it's extremely useful. >> charlie: here's what's intriguing to me about self-driving cars or autonomous cars. since they're so driven by software you can could be stantly innovate and change constantly innovate and change the model you bought. that seems to be a huge advantage. don't have to buy a new car to take advantage of new
developments. >> you're talking technology. except the car is irrational. >> this is a rational aspect of the car where you'll be able to update the technology and put in new applications and change a lot of the intelligence existing in the car without having to trade the car. at the same time when you come to status, design, power, brand, people trade. >> charlie: it's emotional. >> they'll trade the car though the car they're driving is still in good condition. >> charlie: the used car business is a huge business? >> it's a big business. for one now car sold in average have you two to three used cars sold. the size of used cars is big.
in developing count ris it's bigger than that. >> charlie: how long do most people keep a car they change? >> depending on the market. in the united states they trade pretty quickly because there are leases. usually three and four years and they change the car. but in other markets people keep their cars much longer. >> charlie: when i asked about a.i. you said you may change because of something looking better to you but you said technology will not replace it will only support the forward movement of cars. >> it will not. what you're seeing is an opportunity. we're seeing the car become
smarter. we're going from a mobile device to a mobile space and the fact it's becoming more environmentally friendly. i think the next ten years you'll see more transformation in the car industry than what you have seen in the last 30. >> charlie: can you imagine buying another car company so you don't have three but four? >> the way we're organized today is trying to put something in for technology and everything that consumers don't care about. and leave to the brand everything that consumers care about which is a design, the choice of the material, the functionality of the car, the driving performance and tuning of each car. it means logically when you build the platform you can have more companies joining you. it's a win-win because in a certain way we have a lot of
technology. so the more company joining the platform the more the technology becomes affordable. you share the technology with many companies. >> charlie: it's more economical to build different bodies and different vehicles on the same platform. >> yes. it is. >> so you want to minimize the number of platforms you have. >> or limiting them but having as many cars using the same platform. you cannot build on the same platform in small car, medium car, large car, suv, crossover, pickup truck. they need different platforms exem they're extremely expensive and they drive a lot of costs for the suppliers. if you have the same platform if different brands use the same
platform you save on investment and cost which allows you to be more price competitive. car makers are having as many platforms as they need. >> charlie: what percentage of the workforce in an assembly line, if that is the right term, robotic and what percentage is human. >> it depends on the country you are. if you're in united states, france, germany, more robots. when gou to indonesia or thailand, creation of employment is very important for government. the government puts a lot of incentives for creating jobs. they want you to hire people. so depending on the policies and taxation existing in the countries you have a tendency to select morthink that's one of the big political questions
government wills face. as we have more technology and robots how do you develop policies for the people who no longer find there is a workplace for them to go to. it's a central question for the future of government. >> it is a central question. in fact you have two roles. you have the role of technology. what can be done should be offered but then you have the policies through taxation and what you can and cannot do you're giving an orientation to the technology. when he think when you know how to make an electric car we have to offer it. the government can favor the intelligence or not defending on the in sensitives or for the rules on editions. our role hand in hand is to be